Tate v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-CP-00757-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-17-2007 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Improper charge - Felony sentence - Disproportionate sentence Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-13-2005 Appealed from: MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Sharion R. Aycock Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: CV05-151AM |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | BRENDA JOYCE SMITH TATE |
BRENDA JOYCE SMITH TATE (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOHN R. HENRY |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Post-conviction relief - Improper charge - Felony sentence - Disproportionate sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Brenda Tate pled guilty to uttering a forgery. The trial court denied Tate’s motion for post-conviction relief. Tate appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Improper charge Tate argues that she improperly was charged with uttering a forgery, because the bank account she used to write the bad check was her own checking account, the check was legitimate and could not be considered a forged instrument. Tate did not raise this issue during her guilty plea, nor did she contend that the State could not prove the element of uttering a forgery based upon the facts before the trial court. In addition, Tate admitted during the plea colloquy that she knowingly created the fictitious name Rochelle Adams for use on the bank account and presented a check drawn on that account for payment at Wal-Mart. Accordingly, the charge of uttering a forgery was proper. Issue 2: Felony sentence Tate argues that because the amount of the check uttered totaled less than $500, she was entitled to a misdemeanor sentence. Given the second indictment, which was retired to the file, and the trial court’s knowledge of a similar charge in Lowndes County for which Tate owed restitution, the trial court acted properly and within its discretion in imposing a felony sentence. Issue 3: Disproportionate sentence Tate argues that her sentence is disproportionate to those imposed on other defendants on the date that she was sentenced, including one case in which a woman was sentenced to a ten-year sentence with nine years suspended for one count of uttering a forgery. Because Tate did not object to or contest her sentence during the sentencing hearing, this issue is procedurally barred. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Tate to serve a sentence that lies squarely within the guidelines set forth in the statute. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
